Comments on: The Hijacking Of The Word Agile http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/06/07/the-hijacking-of-the-word-agile/ Lidor Wyssocky's Blog on Optimizing Software Development Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:01:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on The Hijacking Of The Word Agile by: BD http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/06/07/the-hijacking-of-the-word-agile/#comment-683 Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:21:03 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/06/07/the-hijacking-of-the-word-agile/#comment-683 Interesting. In my company, the head of SEPG who is responsible for "bring agility" to our current process once mentioned in an email that documentation has no formal place in an agile process and human interaction is all that matters (!!!), and he suggested that the business analysts should not write any Use Case documents anymore. I guess his next step would be, as you said, telling the developers to use white-board for all design activities. Oh, God helps me. Interesting. In my company, the head of SEPG who is responsible for “bring agility” to our current process once mentioned in an email that documentation has no formal place in an agile process and human interaction is all that matters (!!!), and he suggested that the business analysts should not write any Use Case documents anymore. I guess his next step would be, as you said, telling the developers to use white-board for all design activities. Oh, God helps me.

]]> Comment on The Hijacking Of The Word Agile by: Jim Coplien http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/06/07/the-hijacking-of-the-word-agile/#comment-661 Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:04:43 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/06/07/the-hijacking-of-the-word-agile/#comment-661 First, I enjoyed this piece. Second, It's good to get these cautionary words on mangers' plates. Too many ideas have gained mindshare for all the wrong reasons. I shake my head at the ones I've watched do so first-hand: "knowledge bases," "object-oriented," "user-friendly," and now of course "Agile." But third, it's informative to go beyond the "buzz" of "buzzword" to dig a bit deeper to see what's there. A number of folks who have given the issue a second thought now believe that the term "adaptive" is a better term for what the careful "Agile" thinkers originally aspired to, and I agree. I think Jim Highsmith was the first to articulate this nuance, and I think it was in the context of XP being a wonderfully Agile way of doing things that was in no way adapative. I try to use the latter term more and more these days. Because it hasn't (yet) attained buzzword status it helps encourage people to stop and think rather than to jump to conclusions. That -- along with the simple principles of customer engagement, product focus, the human touch, and system dynamics -- is what's important to me. As for the Org Patterns book -- yes, we had a little fun with that. Coming up with a title was actually quite difficult. And though Lidor's book excert above is on the mark, it's not the only ratioinalization of the title. Most of what is called "Agile" today can be traced back in large part to the early stages of the Org Patterns book. Jeff Sutherland says that the morning meeting concept of SCRUM can be traced back to the Borland QPW study that was one of the foundations of the Org Patterns book (http://www.agilealliance.com/articles/sutherlandjeffinventi/file). Even Kent Beck gives homage to the Org Patterns work as one of the three foundations of XP (http://www.oopsla.org/2002/ap/files/spe-metahpor.html). And so on and so forth. Think of the Org Patterns book as a catalog of the principles and structures of Agile; think of most of the rest as being best known for their processes. What I've found intriguing lately is that a rash of adaptive projects started appearing around 1991, at about the time the Org Patterns research started. That's when Ward Cunningham's WYCASH Way was in full swing, as well as the Borland QPW project. I am finding more all the time. It's like there was something in the air, or in the water, and it was everywhere. The industry underwent a shift in thinking at that time and you owe it to yourself to look at the publications of that time to see how quickly things were changing. I like to think that the QPW article was a catalyst, some turquoise stuff in a glass beaker, that helped give visibility to some of those ideas that even then were tried and true (I think Tom DeMarco had said much about pair programming years earlier; unit testing was old hat; etc., etc.). But those old ideas needed a meme to turn on the thinking gene in software project management. The potion turned some people into thinkers who explored things more deeply -- people who turned on their thinking gene and who were able to hear the voice of experience. That's most of what patterns are about: codified collective experience, made personal through careful feeling and thought. Unfortunately, it turned other people into sheep or, maybe worse, lemmings. Turquoise stuff in glass beakers can have such diverse effects. First, I enjoyed this piece. Second, It’s good to get these cautionary words on mangers’ plates. Too many ideas have gained mindshare for all the wrong reasons. I shake my head at the ones I’ve watched do so first-hand: “knowledge bases,” “object-oriented,” “user-friendly,” and now of course “Agile.”

But third, it’s informative to go beyond the “buzz” of “buzzword” to dig a bit deeper to see what’s there. A number of folks who have given the issue a second thought now believe that the term “adaptive” is a better term for what the careful “Agile” thinkers originally aspired to, and I agree. I think Jim Highsmith was the first to articulate this nuance, and I think it was in the context of XP being a wonderfully Agile way of doing things that was in no way adapative. I try to use the latter term more and more these days. Because it hasn’t (yet) attained buzzword status it helps encourage people to stop and think rather than to jump to conclusions. That — along with the simple principles of customer engagement, product focus, the human touch, and system dynamics — is what’s important to me.

As for the Org Patterns book — yes, we had a little fun with that. Coming up with a title was actually quite difficult. And though Lidor’s book excert above is on the mark, it’s not the only ratioinalization of the title. Most of what is called “Agile” today can be traced back in large part to the early stages of the Org Patterns book. Jeff Sutherland says that the morning meeting concept of SCRUM can be traced back to the Borland QPW study that was one of the foundations of the Org Patterns book (http://www.agilealliance.com/articles/sutherlandjeffinventi/file). Even Kent Beck gives homage to the Org Patterns work as one of the three foundations of XP (http://www.oopsla.org/2002/ap/files/spe-metahpor.html). And so on and so forth. Think of the Org Patterns book as a catalog of the principles and structures of Agile; think of most of the rest as being best known for their processes.

What I’ve found intriguing lately is that a rash of adaptive projects started appearing around 1991, at about the time the Org Patterns research started. That’s when Ward Cunningham’s WYCASH Way was in full swing, as well as the Borland QPW project. I am finding more all the time. It’s like there was something in the air, or in the water, and it was everywhere. The industry underwent a shift in thinking at that time and you owe it to yourself to look at the publications of that time to see how quickly things were changing. I like to think that the QPW article was a catalyst, some turquoise stuff in a glass beaker, that helped give visibility to some of those ideas that even then were tried and true (I think Tom DeMarco had said much about pair programming years earlier; unit testing was old hat; etc., etc.). But those old ideas needed a meme to turn on the thinking gene in software project management. The potion turned some people into thinkers who explored things more deeply — people who turned on their thinking gene and who were able to hear the voice of experience. That’s most of what patterns are about: codified collective experience, made personal through careful feeling and thought. Unfortunately, it turned other people into sheep or, maybe worse, lemmings. Turquoise stuff in glass beakers can have such diverse effects.

]]> Comment on The Hijacking Of The Word Agile by: mr angry http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/06/07/the-hijacking-of-the-word-agile/#comment-540 Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:25:10 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/06/07/the-hijacking-of-the-word-agile/#comment-540 Nicely done. Agile is not a bad concept although as you point out, adopting the name was a cynical marketing exercise. Why are people surprised when they oversimplify and use buzz-words that someone else will latch onto their buzz-words for truly evil purposes? Nicely done. Agile is not a bad concept although as you point out, adopting the name was a cynical marketing exercise. Why are people surprised when they oversimplify and use buzz-words that someone else will latch onto their buzz-words for truly evil purposes?

]]> Comment on The Hijacking Of The Word Agile by: Uria http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/06/07/the-hijacking-of-the-word-agile/#comment-531 Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:44:10 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/06/07/the-hijacking-of-the-word-agile/#comment-531 Interesting. Interesting.

]]>